Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browncos

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to Denver Broncos. Note that merge is a form of keep, and the article history remains behind the redirect.

Browncos

No need for a separate article. Also, falls under WP:NOT#INFO. Pats1 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is interesting and notable, but should probably go on the Broncos main page or one or more of the recent Broncos season pages. Adam 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable neologism, about as encyclopedic as the list of arrested bengals.. Montco 16:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Broncos article - not notable enough for a separate article per WP:NOT#INFO EyeSerene^TALK 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Sunshine Man is now Qst 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to 2005 Denver Broncos season. This was notable in 2005, when they signed the first five players listed (mostly because they were castoffs from one of the league's worst defenses). After 2005, the novelty wore off and it was quickly forgotten. On its own, there isn't enough here to merit a standalone article Caknuck 19:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - a small section within a larger article. A punning nickname for those footballers signed by team A from team B is not really sufficient grounds for an article of its own. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate information. A mention of the 2005 Broncos having 5 former Browns linemen is perfectly reasonable, but a whole article just isn't necessary. 103 unique Google hits for "Browncos" isn't enough to sway me that this term is in enough widespread use to justify needing explanation. It's as useless as any other examples of players from Team A now on Team B article you might imagine. — Scientizzle 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scientizzle, info is too trivial and the google hits aren't convicing enough to be merged somewhere. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.